positions.set_exit_rules

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that automatic closing happens via check_exits when price crosses levels, but omits details such as what happens when both orders are set (which triggers first) or whether existing exit rules are replaced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining the automatic mechanism, and providing a usage hint. No unnecessary information, efficiently front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality, automatic behavior, and a key prerequisite. It could mention that stop_loss and take_profit are optional (implied by schema) and whether setting new rules overwrites old ones, but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by directing users to get_positions for the trade_id but does not significantly enhance the schema descriptions for stop_loss and take_profit, which already include examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Set') and resource ('stop-loss and/or take-profit price levels on an open position'). It further explains the automatic closing behavior via check_exits, distinguishing this tool from manual close operations. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly advises using get_positions to find trade IDs, providing a clear prerequisite. It also labels the feature as 'Pro'. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like orders.sell or positions.close for immediate vs automated exit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.